Can LLMs Accurately Score Medical Diagnoses and Clinical Reasoning?
Authors: Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia, Linda Camara, Ziyaad Dangor, Michael Cameron Gramanie, Ismail Kalla, Shabir A. Madhi, Kajal Morar, +3 more
Organizations: aWits MIND Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa · fSchool of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa · bGrai Labs, Cape Town, South Africa · cSouth African Medical Research Council Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa · dDepartment of Internal Medicine, Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital, and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa · eDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators. Here, we evaluate an LLM Jury, composed of three frontier AI models, for scoring 3334 diagnoses on 300 real-world low- and middle-income country (LMIC) hospital cases. Both LLM- and clinician-generated diagnoses are scored against expert panel diagnoses across four dimensions: diagnosis, differential diagnosis, clinical reasoning, and negative treatment risk. The LLM Jury scores are compared with expert and independent re-scoring panel scores to assess error metrics, inter-rater agreement, severe-risk errors, and the effect of post hoc calibration using isotonic regression. In our data, we find that: (i) the uncalibrated LLM Jury scores preserve ordinal agreement with the expert clinician panel scores, but are systematically lower; (ii) the probability of severe-risk errors is lower for the LLM Jury than the human expert re-score panels; (iii) the LLM Jury combined with LLM diagnoses can be used to identify diagnoses at high risk of error, enabling targeted expert review and improved panel efficiency; (iv) the calibrated LLM Jury scores and rankings of diagnosing agents show excellent agreement with those of the primary expert panels; (v) LLM Jury models show no self-preference bias, they did not score diagnoses generated by their own underlying model or models from the same vendor more (or less) favourably than those generated by other models. Together, these results provide evidence that a calibrated LLM Jury is a trustworthy and reliable proxy for expert clinician evaluation in medical AI benchmarking. Confirming these findings in other clinical settings is an important direction for future work.
Open-response evaluation provides stronger clinical validity than multiple-choice benchmarks but creates a scoring bottleneck that motivates automated LLM-asa-Judge approaches. Whether such evaluators replicate clinical calibration and caution, however, remains untested. We introduce MedQADE, the first standardised open-response clinical benchmark for German, a major clinical language lacking native evaluation infrastructure, comprising 3,800 items annotated by ten practising physicians and nine Large Language Model (LLM) evaluators. The top-performing evaluator model, Gemini 3 Flash, reached alignment consistent with the physician ceiling (\k{appa} = 0.694 vs. \k{appa} = 0.709), though wide confidence intervals limit interpretation. Despite this statistical alignment, automated evaluators exhibited near-absent clinical metacognition: physicians scaled abstention with item difficulty, while frontier models assigned definitive scores in every case. We additionally quantified systematic lineage-dependent biases, where models preferentially scored architectural siblings, an effect independent of language. These results show that statistical alignment does not ensure clinical caution, and that evaluator independence requires explicit verification.
William Philipp, Finn Fassbender, Thorsten Langer +11
Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs). This is difficult to scale; thus, prior studies typically rely on small physician panels, often from a single institution or specialty, which both limits the scientific questions investigated and makes it unclear whether findings would be reproduced with a different set of evaluators. To more rigorously and scalably study clinical reasoning in AI models, here we introduce PrecepTron, an LLM fine-tuned for physician-level evaluation of open-ended responses. PrecepTron was trained using low-rank adaptation (LoRA) of a 32-billion-parameter model on a small number of physician examples. We also release GRAND-ROUNDS, a new large-scale physician-annotated benchmark of 9,217 scores by 11 physicians across seven studies. We show that frontier LLMs in typical "LLM-as-a-judge" approaches often disagree with physicians and with each other, but fine-tuning PrecepTron on a small number of cases enables physician-level consistent scoring across tasks. We use PrecepTron to reproduce headline findings from five influential studies assessing LLMs for clinical care in JAMA, Science, and Nature Medicine without new human grading. Using PrecepTron, we then pose new questions about how LLMs reason in medicine that would have been infeasible with human grading alone, including measuring the diagnostic accuracy of frontier LLMs when clinical cases are provided piecemeal, even token by token. Together, PrecepTron and GRAND-ROUNDS provide a foundation for reproducible, large-scale study of how LLMs reason in medicine. All code, data, and labels are made freely available for researchers.
Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee, Peter G. Brodeur +14
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for diagnostic support, but few evaluations use real-world multimodal inpatient data, particularly in low and middle-income country (LMIC) public hospitals. Methods: We conducted VALID, a retrospective evaluation of 539 multimodal inpatient cases from a tertiary public hospital in South Africa. Inputs included radiology imaging (CT, MRI, CXR) and reports, laboratory results, clinical notes, and vital signs. Expert panels adjudicated 300 cases (balanced and discordant subsets) to establish ground truth diagnoses, differentials, and reasoning. Ten multimodal LLMs generated zero-shot outputs. A calibrated three-model LLM Jury scored all outputs and routine ward diagnoses across diagnostic accuracy, differential quality, reasoning, and patient safety (>10,000 evaluations). Primary outcomes were composite scores (S3, S4) and win rates. Results: (i) LLM performance was tightly clustered (<15% variation) despite large cost differences; low-cost models performed comparably to top models. (ii) All LLMs significantly outperformed routine ward diagnoses on average diagnostic and safety scores. (iii) Top performance was achieved by GPT-5.1, followed by Gemini models. (vi) Adding radiology reports improved performance by 6%. (v) Diagnostic and reasoning scores were highly correlated (ρ=0.85). (vi) Output rates varied (65-100%) due to input constraints. Results were robust across subsets and evaluation design. Conclusions: Across a real-world LMIC dataset, multimodal LLMs showed similar diagnostic performance despite large cost differences and outperformed routine care on average safety metrics. Affordability, robustness, and deployment constraints may outweigh marginal performance differences in LMIC settings.
Bruce A. Bassett, Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia +8